Comment 50809

By Clay Shentrup (anonymous) | Posted October 29, 2010 at 00:13:08

@Pxtl

IRV has not typically replaced Plurality Voting -- it has typically replaced top-two runoff, which indeed MAY be better than IRV.
ScoreVoting.net/HonestRunoff.html

Also the "granularity" of IRV is misleading. It is true that a voter can put down more information on a ranked ballot than on an Approval Voting ballot. With n candidates, you can rank them n! different ways, where's you can only approve them in (2^n)-2 different ways. So for 5 candidates that's 120 different ways you can rank them, vs. 32 ways you can approve them. But that's only a third of the story.

The other two important factors are:
1) How inaccurate that data is, due to incentives for the voter to "lie", and
2) How efficiently the tabulation method sums that data.

Despite common myth, IRV incentivizes voters to use the "exaggeration strategy", where they push their favorite two FRONTRUNNERS roughly into first and last place, regardless of who their actual favorite candidate is.
www.electology.org/analysis/irv-plurality

And regardless of whether you believe that, the empirical reality is that voters intuitively DO exaggerate like that when using ranked ballots.
scorevoting.net/AusAboveTheLine07.html

The voting method you're describing doesn't sound proportional to me. It sounds like cumulative voting(??). Please check out Asset Voting, which *is* proportional.
scorevoting.net/rangeVcumulative.html
scorevoting.net/Asset.html

Clay Shentrup
clay@brokenladder.com

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds